Generating gameworlds with computers: the case for procedural creativity
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| Date | 13 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-05-2018-0042 |
| Pages | 266-284 |
| Author | Matthew Jason Wells,Jason Boyd |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library & information services |
Generating gameworlds with
computers: the case for
procedural creativity
Matthew Jason Wells and Jason Boyd
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –Despite the popularity of the Computational Thinking (CT) paradigm and the call for broad
social diffusion of CS fundamentals,the authors argue that the concept is inherently limited and limiting and
does not sufficiently convey an understanding of how to enable people to create with computational
technologies.The authors suggest an alternate paradigm, procedural creativity,that calls for the development
of conceptual creativespaces governed by procedurally generative principles. The authorsalso call for game
developmentto be the focus of procedural creativity pedagogy.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors first discuss the limitations of the CT paradigm,
focusing, in particular,on the issue of abstraction and representation as opposed to executionand action. The
authors then define procedural creativity in more detail. Following that, they discuss the use of game
developmentas pedagogy, with a focus on Margaret Boden’s notion of conceptualcreative spaces.
Findings –CT is limited because it focusesoverly on solutions to computational “problems”, becauseit is
tied too closelywith economic concerns and because it focuses onabstraction at the cost of action. Procedural
creativity, on the other hand, focuseson the individual’s capacity for personal expression with the computer
and on the generative capacity of code in action. Game development is in ideal platform for procedural
creativitybecause it emphasizes the development of creativedomains and conceptual spaces.
Originality/value –This paper offers a challenge to the CT statusquo and presents a novel way forward
for understandingcomputation as a creative practice.
Keywords Education, Games, Creativity, Programming, Computation, Coding
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Computer science (CS) and the computer science education (CSE) movement, not
surprisingly, have eagerly endorsed Jeannette Wing’s concept (first outlined in 2006) of
Computational Thinking(CT) and her call for the broad social diffusion of CS fundamentals
as an essential contributorto the social good[1]. This special issue is in part motivated by the
idea that current educational initiatives and related research “offer support that the
incorporation of computer science concepts in learning programs is an idea whose time has
come”(Meyers and Huang). However that may be the case, in this paper, we temper that
certainty by arguing that CT, as a paradigm for understandinghuman and social processes
and for developing ways in which to enable people (especially youth in learning
environments) to become empoweredto think (and create) with computational technologies,
comes with significant limitations. Accordingly, we suggest an alternate paradigm –
procedural creativity–that moves beyond the limitations of CT and the CSE pedagogies and
curricula it has informed. Although, like Meyers and Huang, we see the making of video
games as a valuable mode in which to engage youth in effectively using computational
technologies, we suggest that coding interfaces and games design curricula designed to
teach youth CS in the guise of game making are limited by the paradigm of CT, and that
ILS
120,5/6
266
Received25 May 2018
Revised30 November 2018
Accepted14 December 2018
Informationand Learning
Sciences
Vol.120 No. 5/6, 2019
pp. 266-284
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-5348
DOI 10.1108/ILS-05-2018-0042
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-5348.htm
procedural creativity enables the consideration of other game creation interfaces and a
richer application of games design approaches–interfaces and approaches that are not
predetermined by and extendbeyond CS and CT.
Our argument begins by outliningsome of the presumptions and problems behind CT as
a paradigm for human activity and endeavor, and particularly the shape it has taken in
educational settings. It then discusses the concept of computation, and how it operates
within a very delimited field of activity, a limitationwhich leads us to propose the concept of
the procedural or procedurality, a more expansiveconcept than computation. Creativity is a
common aspiration among proponents of computational thinking, and the concept of
procedurality also enables an expansion of activity from thinking to creativity. Therefore,
we propose the concept of “procedural creativity”as a more valuable paradigm in thinking
how youth might use computing technologies in empowering ways. In this article we will
expand on the definition of this term, and discuss the motivations and arguments for
incorporating it into discourses on computational thinking. We will then work through
examples of how computational creativity may be used as a tool for exploring facets of
computation not addressed in computational thinking. Given the emphasis on games in
computational thinking pedagogy, and given the high degree of procedurality inherent in
game code, we will focus in particular here on games. The overall point, however, is that
computation can notonly solve problems, it can incite both creative actionand reflection. As
a concept, proceduralcreativity addresses all of these facets.
The limits of computational thinking
There are several aspects regarding the conceptualization of CT that require interrogation if
it is to be promoted as key to learning environments for youth. The first is its initial
development and deploymentas a way of advocating for (or, more crassly, “selling”the idea
of) the broadly social relevance of (and the public investment in) Computer Science
Education (CSE), what JeannetteWing, in her initial delineation of CT, called “a grand vision
[...] as we act to change society’s image of the field [of Computer Science]”(Wing, 2006,
p. 35). Wing’s“call to arms”(Meyers and Huang) presumes that a broad diffusion (a social
literacy) of Computer Science fundamentals is important to the well-being, the optimal
functioning, of humanity and society. We suggest that,while CSE advocates may fervently
subscribe to this claim, it is debatable whether Computer Science is the most empowering
and enriching way in which youth might think with computers. In part, this is due to what
we see as a key limitation of the conceptualization of CT, a limitation that is duein large part
to the limitations of the concept of computation. One of its limitations is that it operates
within a considerably circumscribed field: to compute is “to determine by arithmetical or
mathematical reckoning”(OEDOnline, sense 1) (one might add here logical reckoning), and
to determine something is “to put an end or limit to; to come to an end”;“to direct to some
end or conclusion; to come to some conclusion”(OED Online, I and III). In these definitions
we can see the highly specialized nature of computation, which relies on a scientific
paradigm (mathematics) to furnish a definite end or result: thus Wing’s view that CT is
directed toward solving problems–atcoming to a definite result (a solution). CT conceives of
human endeavor primarily taking the form of the (computational, logical) development of
solutions to problems:“Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing
systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to
computer science”(Wing, 2006, p. 33); “Computational thinking is a way humans solve
problems”(Wing, 2006, p. 35). So, to take up the first aspect of CT mentionedabove –what
might be called the proselytizingzeal behind the original articulation of CT –with the tenet
that CT is about solving problems, the result is an article of faith that believes that society
Generating
gameworlds
267
To continue reading
Request your trial